Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-42vt5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-16T07:20:46.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Omnidirectional vision and conformal geometric algebra for visuallandmark identification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2008

C. López-Franco  and
E. Bayro-Corrochano
C. López-Franco
Affiliation:
CINVESTAV Unidad Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44270, México
E. Bayro-Corrochano*
Affiliation:
CINVESTAV Unidad Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44270, México
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: edb@gdl.cinvestav.mx
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The automatic landmark identification is very important in autonomous robotnavigation tasks. In this paper, we use a monocular omnidirectional visionsystem to extract the image features and the conformal geometric algebra tocompute the projective invariants from such features. We show how these featurescan be used to compute projective and permutationp2-invariants from any kind ofomnidirectional vision system. Thep2-invariants represent scenesublandmarks, and a set of them characterize a landmark. The advantage of thisrepresentation is that the landmarks are more robust than the singlecross-ratio.

Keywords

Geometric algebraConformal geometric algebraCatadioptricProjective invariantsp2-invariantsOmnidirectional vision

Information

Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , September 2008 , pp. 559 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Baker, S. and Nayar, S., “A theory of single-viewpoint catadioptric image formation,” Int. J. Comput. Vis. 35, 1–22 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Barnett, V., “The ordering of multivariate data,” J. Roy. Statist. Soc. A 3, 318–343 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Bayro-Corrochano, E., “Robot Perception and Action Using Conformal Geometry,” In: Bayro-Corrochano, E. (ed.): Handbook of Geometric Computing. Applications in Pattern Recognition, Computer Vision, Neurocomputing and Robotics (Bayro-Carrochano, E., ed) (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg) pp. 405–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Bayro-Corrochano, E. and López-Franco, C., “Omnidirectional Vision: Unified Model Using Conformal Geometry,” Proceeding of the European Conference on Computer Vision (2004) pp. 536–548.Google Scholar
5.Benosman, and Kang, , Panoramic Vision (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2006).Google Scholar
6.Biglieri, E. and Yao, K., “Some Properties of Singular Value Decomposition and Their Application to Digital Signal Processing,” Signal Process. 18, 277–289 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Brannan, D., Esplen, M. and Gray, J., Geometry (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.).Google Scholar
8.Colios, C. and Trahanias, P. E., “A framework for visual landmark identification based on projective and point-permutation invariant vectors,” Robot. Autonom. Syst. J. 35, 37–51 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Geyer, C. and Daniilidis, K., “A Unifying Theory for Central Panoramic Systems and Practical Implications,” Proceeding of the European Conference on Computer Vision (2000) pp. 445–461.Google Scholar
10.Golub, G. H. and Loan, van C. F., Matrix Computations (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD).Google Scholar
11.Hartley, R., “Cheirality Invariants,” DARPA Image Understanding Workshop (1993) pp. 745–753.Google Scholar
12.Hestenes, D., Li, H. and Rockwood, A., “New Algebraic Tools for Classical Geometry,” In: Geometric Computing with Clifford Algebra (Sommer, G., ed.) (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001) pp. 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Li, H. and Hestenes, D., “Generalized Homogeneous Coordinates for Computational Geometry,” In: Geometric Computing with Clifford Algebra (Sommer, G., ed.) (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001) pp. 27–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Meer, P., Lenz, R. and Ramakrishna, S., “Efficient invariant representation,” Int. J. Comput. Vision, 26, 137–152 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Lasenby, J. and Bayro-Corrochano, E., “Analysis and computation of projective invariants from multiple views in the geometric algebra framework,” Int. J. Patt. Recog. Art. Intel., 13, 1105–1121 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar